itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

13 hours ago, Xann said:

 

Ooh, lessons from the Dark Side.

Of course the Tories are familiar with the European regs that stop them making £.

You get fed whatever fits their agenda.

Since that often means public money going into private hands, you maybe don't ask many awkward questions?

Nope, lessons. My meetings have been cross-party (that means every party has been involved..or invited...some didn't turn up)
You eat up whatever information you glance at from whichever party suits your mood that day. I have spent my working life trying to funnel public money away from failing private business and back into the public sector, when it works. My blog is basically full of those stories and exists because of the failed state and failed state approach to relying on the private sector. Otherwise I have been helping both the public sector and the third sector improve how they operate.

I have thrived taking on local and central government (all the parties) and while I can't say I ask the right questions 100% of the time, I'm probably not that smart, I always ask the awkward questions and now get paid to do that. 

The sad thing is you don't actually read anything I write as I have consistently criticised the way all parties have funnelled money away from the public sector, including the main offenders who put all this in place, the Labour party. It's still happening now with local governement, which apparently is always central's fault....sigh!

Sadly, of all the people in here you're the one who consistently misses the point in favour of criticising me and it's fine. I have never and will never give up on the uninformed and I hope one day you and your chums can learn something past the rhetoric you are so desperately hanging on to. If I add to that weight and someone smarter or with stronger rhetoric changes your mind, so be it. I will simply give you facts, I can't control whether you even bother to research their validity. Sadly, in this instance it goes for the people who liked your post too. 

Quote

Funny how the the party in power gets information faster than the opposition.

You're telling me that the party in power has better access to information that has been changing the way the UK operates for over 20 years? Despite Labour and many of their existing MP's being in charge for 13 years? And the leader being a critic? The info exists in the public domain and has for decades!

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

One man's barrier is another man's safeguard

Too true. If only people were willing to work out which was which. Ignorance is bliss and staying partisan helps many sleep at night

1 hour ago, bickster said:

I'm sure this has been disproved time and time again

Tories have borrowed far more and taxed higher than Labour have, pretty consistently since WW2

If you're willing to ignore the fact that Labour threw their and other peoples money at problems that either didn't exist or were impossible to solve under the structure they put in place then yes, absolutely, ignoring Labours financial failures shows the Tories as the real problem.

22 hours ago, darrenm said:

Yawn

Yup, facts can be boring!

4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Sounds more like the Tories to be honest.

100%, it's both of them! 

New kind of politics baby!

2 hours ago, bickster said:

It's pretty easy to work out. The Remain Campaign was essentially fronted by Cameron and Osbourne. The referendum was essentially Tory ideas vs Tory ideas. Labour Remain MPs were out and about up and down the country every day but received very few column inches for their troubles. The media, by and large, ignored them, I'm also fairly convinced that the Labour leadership weren't unhappy with this

I sat on brexit panels, I attended brexit meetings and I gave comments on brexit articles; you're wrong, Labour really didn't have a clue and tbh it wasn't about column inches, it was about front benches/representatives not know anything .  I am still attending those meetings and brief members who attend on our behalf, nothing has changed but now I am finding out that trade unions know even less than Labour MP's.
Despite spending much time arguing with them, the Conservatives were a godsend in helping me understand the barriers under the EU and those which weren't barriers, Labour were an obstacle because they had to wait for a Conservative to answer in order to be informed.

When Corbyn mentioned the 'posted workers directive' the laughs from all sides tells you a lot about the ignorance of understanding EU policy. But that comment got inches and attention, because they actually had more than rhetoric in their armoury. 

While you're correct that Remain was Cameron and Osborne, the £350m bus criticism was a major Labour campaign and again, that should point to the deficiencies in their 'argument' a that message is still running.

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Wouldn't you say that Labour's whole approach to the referendum was pretty half cocked? I don't think anyone knew what JC wanted for the referendum until it was over. The only one who mobilised properly against Brexit was the Lib Dems.

I 100% agree with you and Labour were very clever in grabbing very many Lib Dem votes. I was genuinely excited about my Lib Dem's chances in Hall Green but the final result was awful and people voting on the EU and anti-Tory killed their vote...in part because of clever Labour campaigning, or non-campaigning when misinformation existed! Now my guy has retired (because of the swing nonsense) and street lighting, roads, parks, rubbish, social rent, facilities etc will all suffer and that's terrible, but heck, sod peoples local living standards, let's get the Tories out to replace them with guys who also don't understand the granular issues of policy.

I felt JC was silenced before the referendum and I was desperate to hear from him, especially as he's an obvious critic and proper rebel. Funny how Trident is okay to be an open conversation between the leader and party but Brexit absolutely isn't. Quite simply, this is not a new type of politics in the slightest and Labour are every bit, perhaps worse, liars than the Conservatives. But then that's nothing new, Labour always trick people into their lies, the Tories for the most, lay out how they're going to screw people over and we all see it coming.

People say, well Corbyn isn't a leader so he's not making decisions, but that's nonsense, he's a conversation and agenda setter and in parliament his guys challenge the opposition.....but they haven't and it suits them to oppose with anti-Tory rhetoric and not Tory policy discussion. Look at the recent drugs debate, why did Abbot bother turning up? Blunt (Conservative) was the major challenger to the government.

In the last few months I've been on two panels with Labour MPs and tbh, it's clear they have no intention of understanding anyone's POV and simply want to get their rhetoric for votes across.

The same debate exists in local and central govt, people are very happy to blame the UK government for EU failure but not blame local government for central government problems. Well many of those local governments are Labour but everything is the Conservatives fault.....the arguments simply don't add up.

@blandy you're correct and we definitely have the overall say in very many issues; however,  the fishing issue is as much about the size/type of the quota as it is about the discards. An undeveloped conversation even in that article which is still very good, but it still doesn't really concentrate on that point, despite saying that it's hard for small fisherman to limit their quota and so choose to sell it on. It's bureaucracy to satisfy failed bureaucracy! 

100% agree with the supermaket issues, I drink about 6 pints every 2 days and milk is cheaper than water...and that pains me and has for years...it's actually why I started thinking about milk costs a few years back.
However, my partners father is a potato, beef and milk producer. The hoops he jumps through has destroyed his love for the job and decimated his profits, he's now stopped doing potatoes because he can't keep afloat. He also looked into selling his cows as people still come across the world to buy them, but the regulatory risk requires a high financial contribution and of course many banks have had their lending changed by the EU to reduce 'bad debt', not bad debt payers.
Yet when I bring up regulation I am jumped upon for making things easier for profit makers, well no, people need to understand how often obtrusive regulation stops small business from either existing or building a business...who then can take the strain? Only big companies who can take risks. If many of those regulations stop businesses being profitable or even to earn a living, and they are EU regs, who, ultimately, needs to do more? Again, it's bureaucracy to satisfy failed bureaucracy.

We know it's both (and I would 100% agree the UK government is most to blame, we can just ignore the EU like other counties) but we both know individual countries don't hold much weight with the EU until everything is broken. Remember, with milk, the supermarkets just said that with the quotas being relaxed,they could simply buy elsewhere so the gate price dropped. As regulation changed farmers became burdened and people like Parmalat bought very many smaller local competitors and companies.

Plus the costs of keeping the animals (food, insurance, vaccinations, process etc) went up hugely which impacted the profitability, or non-profitability of being a milk producer. Some smaller companies have diversified, for example into posh yogurt but others cannot afford the now automated system the largest companies use....at some point the EU has to deliver ways to protect produce, as they have with legally protected regional produce like champagne.

It's really sad because I'm 100% a reformer,  the EU has masses of potential, but as someone who has written to many EU Ministers  (and applied for many EU jobs) I have been very disappointed in the replies I got, (not that I get great ones from MP's). However, I get the feeling that change is not really on many people's agendas (EU, UK, voters), status quo is easier, especially not our MP's where - sadly for many of the guys who enjoy a bash and not a discussion - the only ones that seem to have any finger on any pulse are the Conservatives, which from the point of discussion/success going forward, is a real disaster! 

16 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

A 17/18 year old being brainwashed and misinformed and then unwillingly brainwashing her peers is not admirable. It's sinister.

Because no matter how many times one can state 'Corbyn didn't say x' with the proof, it's much easier to completely ignore it for the sake of an easy win.

Hear hear, that's why Labour should be heavily criticised by all for trying to misinform people. From their undeliverable manifesto to their vague answers to secure votes.  

They say this is a new type of politics but so far, all I'm seeing is an amplification of the absolute worse kind of politics!. I think Corbyn could be stronger but I feel it's his party who are pulling the strings, just like they pulled him away from the EU referendum debate. 

16 hours ago, bickster said:

milk is the new fish

Only to the ignorant.......

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

This is the Tory thread! And as you said (as did I) they're the muppets who triggered the A50 thing when they really shouldn't have done, when it was our best negotiating ploy to hold off, when the Gov't was ill prepared.

Looking at your example - milk and SME builders. Are you telling me that the problems there are with the EU, because I don't think they are. I think Milk producers have been rodgered by the Supermarkets and let down by the Milk board (or whatever it's called). Supermarket power in terms of purchasing and their power over producers is a major factor for farmers struggling, particularly small farmers. It's nothing to do with the EU, but all to do with consecutive UK Gov'ts kowtowing to unregulated free market economics  - giving power to big business because big business donates to them.

Construction relies on forward planning, on Government infrastructure investment and on an economy in a good state. The global recession and then in particular Osborne's steps to cut back Gov't spending, the approach he took to the banks and lending and reserves killed lending to small business investment and helming back the economy and builders (and other SMEs) - again, not caused by the EU.

Internal investment is not (mostly) stopped because it's protectionist, it's prevented because of Gov't actions. There is nothing to stop the Gov't deciding to invest in whatever it likes - Power stations (e.g. Hinkley) Roads, Cross-rail, HS2 - it's all about choices they've made. They've tended to favour big projects, with overseas finance and providers - EDF, Chinese money, American Planes, German Rail...etc.

There are some big flaws with the EU, and leaving could (theoretically) be not massively painful, if done right, but tbh our Gov't is doing everything wrong, unsurprisingly, because they're a bunch of incompetent eftards, by and large.

It's a Tory thread, not a bash a Tory thread.......

The milk stats are not from this country but from the entire EU. We've done a little better than the rest of the EU but in the poorest countries those farm jobs have devastated communities. And actually CAP inhibits new entrants. Food banks existed well before Osborne and I know because I used to deliver food to them, but what's changed? There are more for sure but also they are more united not, in part because of the internet but also because it's a good way to focus on Conservative failure....not failure, either previous or locally.....eg, house prices ARE a local government issue more than central! 
I am baffled at how little actual farmers and fishermans opinions are listened to, they lived through the change, they didn't research it with tinted glasses as so many 'experts' do!

Construction actually relies on people being able to win work. if procurement on everything - from toiler paper to leisure centres  -favours big companies who sub-contract, how good is that for the local economy? Do you get a transient workforce? Are you getting value for money? We have section 106 agreements to keep jobs local (not careers), UK policy, but EU regs, EU and some WTO agreed thresholds (not who can access the work), mean its big companies again who win the work. SMEs used to build the majority of projects in the UK.
Of course we could do more but you'd need every local authority and every party to change their mind on procurement and they don't even recognise it's a problem. In fact in my experience the only people who know anything about it are the Conservatives, when I meet them they know, Labour don't and the trade unions are even worse. There's no appetite for change or realism!

Also not completely true about internal investment. We could do more as Slovakia has shown and we've wasted those opportunities but at least you know that! Few do! But I don't think you realise how powerful the ECJ has been, for example, because I've explained it fully, with the Green Deal.

Why did we not invest in LDV/Rover like we did with British Leyland....we couldn't, because of EU competition law. What a waste!
The same happened with our great automotive trades in after sales components. We lost loads of businesses because government couldn't invest, after a while they were asset stripped by foreign investors....do I blame Labour? I did at the time until I learnt they had their hands tied. Then I blamed them for doing nothing about it in the years after, like Cameron in his 'negotiations'. 

I should have said renewable powerstations. The EU used to fund a variation of renewable energy projects,19 I think, but they've chosen to now only support 3 major companies. That's the EU solving the EU's renewable energy infrastructure. Absolutely nothing to do with the UK! But everything to do with a failed decision. In fact a British win company was looking for investment from the UK govt, we couldnt do it but a wealthy Dutch private company could.

There are also some issues with the EU mortgage directive making lending very difficult on more expensive properties. It's not as simple as you make it seem or present. It's complicated and that's because it's a one cap model that never fit all when we were less than 10, let alone 28.

I agree with the last comment, it's been an agonisingly head shaking 7 years that followed a heart shattering 9.

On 05/08/2017 at 11:07, colhint said:

I have to respond this. First why the need to be so condescending toward my daughter, she has done nothing to you.  Secondly no way was she the leader of the group and there were over 100 of them. Third they don't just click their fingers . Forth the overwhelming majority were all for voting to end school fees and historic debt. You could argue that's not was said, but as I mentioned it earlier, two front benchers were going along these lines. Fifth loads of these 17 and 18 year olds have siblings two or three  years older than themselves who have debt, so its not selfless its personal within the family. Sixth These 17 and 18 year old school leavers about 350 ish all think Corbyn is a liar,  so it maybe a small percentage to you but well over 90% of the school leavers  at her school this year don't trust him. Seventh I couldn't care less what you believe, I showed her the post and all she said is " he needs to speak with more students then"

Unfortunately first hand opinion isn't important. Brexit anyone?
The best thing you can do with the entrenched on here is show them a Guardian video or article, I've lost count of the times it's moved the conversation on.

Glad your daughter caught on early, we must find a way to reduce misinformation and get people involved in policy and not politics. Clearly many on here are too long in the tooth to change.
If she has any ideas on how I might do that please pass them on!

37 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Brexit will be great but only if we really, really believe it will be.

Policy by Tinkerbell effect.

EU is the answer to all our problems, but only if you ignore a whole group of peoples opinions.

One way ticket to  Venezuela? 

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's utterly pathetic that over a year later, people are still using the term 'remoaners'.

 

It's utterly pathetic that labels are thrown around as easily as they are but heck, if you throw one at me and offer an illogical comment then if the cap fits,  expect one back.

53 minutes ago, blandy said:

I agree the EU needs reform, I agree the EU is in a much stronger position than the UK, but as for them needing reform more than we need the EU, no, I don't see that.  I really also don't get why the EU would need to ask for a pause, or why for the EU that would be good policy.

We know that the EU is well prepared for the proceess and negotiations. We know that the EU has a set of detailed position papers, a set of trained, expert negotiators, we know that it has a set of conditions and demands and a framework set for the negotiations.

We know that the UK is badly prepared for the process and negotiations, we know that memebrs of the GOvernment and Cabinet have completely differing views on what the UK position should be, and that therefore the UK does not have a clear position on what the UK wants from the process, or what outcome is being sought. We know that the UK Gov't has been caught by surprise by some of the impacts of leaving the ECJ, for example. We know that we do not have sufficient trained, expert negotiators, we know that people involved on our side have said how unprepared we are for the negotiations, we know that there have been a sequence of resignations of UK people involved and failures to attract top people to join our team.

We know that in the UK the feelings about Brexit have shifted in the direction of " we should stay in" rather than "leave" and we know that across the EU the feelings towards the EU in the wake of the Brexit vote have been much more favourable than up to that point. We know that since the vote to leave, the UK has dropped from doing best out of the EU nations, to doing just about the worst, economically.

We know that while some planned events have carried on unaffected, many others have not, we know that businesses are planning to move abroad, set up operations abroad in order to be able to continue to trade in the EU single market.

These are all facts, and they're al lrelated, or most of them to the sheer incompetence of the Tory gov't..

The ECJ thing, hopefully not Euroatom as that's a terrible example? And while I agree public opinion may have shifted, if it was less 'doom and gloom' and more 'wow we're amazing' things would be v different again. And please, stop being so small minded and blaming the Tories. Both before and after this referendum, Labour have been despicable and spent all their time playing politics, including silencing their leader. In fact I am sad to say a party I campaigned over a decade for, the Lib Dems, have been as unhelpful to the process.
But well done Labour for stealing many of their votes and momentum with their EU remain misinformation. New kind of Politics baby! 

Let's assume everything you say is true? Why not rethink both sides failures? Under the EU we have lost 85% of our small milk producers. The SME construction industry has shrunk to levels never seen in this country. Overnight we saw prices double for more than 50% of EU countries. Africa has become a a tool for EU prosperity at the cost of Africans, the real poor. New farmers have been kept out of the game. Internal investment of very many kinds is stopped because it's protectionist, despite the EU protecting from outside influence. Millions and millions of people find life unaffordable, particularly in housing. Individual countries in X,Y and Z have been asked to take the strain, eg - Italy and immigration. Energy policy has moved away from innovative producers to the big few. And then a survey telling us how happy everyone in the EU is justifies them continuing unabated. 

In 10 years time our evolution remains in our hands; without reform and in 10 years time, 27 member states will see theirs in the hands of people who don't know them, who don't care for them and who don't give a hoot about the granular impact of their policies. 
These are all facts, and they're all related, or most of them to the sheer incompetence of the EU.

40 minutes ago, bickster said:

1) Go on, amuse us, that's a line right out of the Gove handbook, it even has his trademark lack of substantiation. I'm presuming you have an invite for the Platitude Festival next summer.

2) Another one out of the Brexiteers handbook. I can think of at least 48% of the population that didn't think that

Hopefully, now that my ever present Glasto is not on. I do enjoy getting a chance to speak to people even when they disagree.

1. Amuse you? Sigh. I have been amusing you for two years on this topic, if you've learnt absolutely nothing from anything I have written then yes, Britain under an ignorant EU suits you and this country perfectly!
I've mentioned farming, fishing, automotive such as LDV/Rover,  high tech design, construction, automotive, environmental, tourism and population power among others. So many of our industries are underdeveloped because of one reason or another, and yes the EU is one of them. But it's also not! Which is why clearly we have to leave the EU because people aren't willing to really comprehend the problems we DO face under the EU...or the problems the EU causes to its own members or others!

I have been constantly realistic about the difficulties of leaving but I'm not willing to be ignorant about the potential. You might be so anti-leave that you're small minded enough to shove me in a boat with Gove but I won't assume you're Cable, the old man with the old man's opinion....despite the obvious similarities! 

2. Nope. I always felt we should make them wait and wait, It was our prerogative. I was tired of hearing, reading, seeing people ask for article 50 to begin because we weren't ready for the referendum let alone negotiations. 
But wow, what an ignorant comment. You think it's 48%? Because many remainers were desperate to just get on with Brexit, it was the remoaners who have put up the walls....and they don't amount to 48%...straight out of the Brexiteers handbook? Nope, straight out of the remoaners one!

On 8/5/2017 at 10:28, blandy said:

You're kidding right? Joking?

the uk govt gave notice to leave (article 50) which has a 2 year timescale. We, our idiot Tory government, triggered the timer. The majority of the damage that will result will happen to the uk, its citizens, businesses and position...and the EU should ask us if we wouldn't mind awfully, y'know, just pausing? Priceless.

Not in the least. I - unlike you - do not believe that Brexit will be a disaster even if we're in a really tough environment. I see so much potential in this country and its foundations that I am shocked so few people believe in. (not identifying anyone specifically). And that brings me onto the EU and why THEY NEED A PAUSE, not us! They have 28 member states to look after (or two as my work college says, Germany and France) and they have been losing their confidence one by one. Also if you remember they were the ones pushing for us to enact article 50 so we can get all this started! So were Labour, the media, the general population, almost everyone! The EU know they’re in a much more powerful position than us, at the moment, but they need reform much more than we need the EU to survive.

That has been the case since before our referendum and it will remain the case until they reform. Priceless? Yup, good policy is. And it’s very difficult to find in the EU across all member states as is the desire to make that happen.

On 03/08/2017 at 18:43, blandy said:

There's absolutely loads of it. It may not be immediately apparent, in part because stuff keeps getting "realised" by the leave people. some recent examples include consequences of leaving and (for various reasons, some of which initially make sense) wishing to leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We've also handed in notice to leave Euratom, because of the ECJ angle.

Similar problems apply to Aviation and a host of other industries with international aspects.  The policy conflicts you mention are almost invisible because there's a pretty seamless, free flow of data, regulation, travel, ideas, funding, standards etc. as it is now, but that'll all stop when we leave.

It's a proper cliff edge. Many times over. A gazillion "unforeseen" consequences, because the people who want out haven't ever considered them, and the people who wanted in didn't ever think we'd leave.

The progressive thing is to remain, the idiotic thing is to leave - the consequences are huge.

It is getting realised by all people! Some Leave guys discussed Euratom before the election but nobody picked it up, and remain certainly didn't campaign on it. Is there a solution? Well so far from what I gathered pre-election was that the ECJ would just have jurisdiction over nuclear energy..no biggie, surely? Don't we have to hand in notice if leaving the EU but can still join after?

Similar problems for sure but that's the point about leaving, sorting them out over time, hence a transitional period. It is a cliff edge and remaining will no doubt be easier (and I'd be very fine with that) but you're completely incorrect, the progressive thing here is for the EU to come back to the table, ask for a pause, and try and hammer out the problems that have been biting at their heels for decades. The EU needs to be a model for shared wealth and less bureaucratic engagement, not this faceless **** show we have today. 

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Lets see what the Leave side are saying about fishing less than a month ago..

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40471466

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40814377

Ahh righto. You'd think being flatly lied to time after time would make some people sit up and start to take notice, but some seem to be too busy not caring about economic ruin and their family losing their jobs

Wrong.

What you're doing there is confusing reporting with policy. It's the quotas that's a major problem, thank god the report identified that. Better than REMAIN, which is what I said!
Why bring up leave? My beef as it always had been is with the complete inaction from 'remain' to progress any conversation that obstructs their POV. It's ridiculous and I would throw the same accusation at leave, but with less ferocity.
Look at Corbyns contribution to the referendum, a man who spent some of his backbench time criticising EU failures, who was then silenced.

Strange how neither article mentioned conservation, but heck, why discuss that when we have Brexit failure to focus on. If it fails then it's a failure, but we've not even left and Britain is sunk.

Righto indeed! If not the EU than the political parties, but nobody has delivered sustainable prosperity that has lasted until today. In fact, the many issues the EU ignores has been biting them on the behind for a decade now, but heck, rose tinted specs it is! Modern life, technology and communication has created far more opportunity than any club membership.
The EU may have helped, for sure, it's created a market that proves products/services viable, but that's what I keep saying about the Green Deal in this country, a failed approach to solving our energy potential because of decades of EU shortsightedness. 

Wrong? How so? Show me a comprehensive ,progressive approach from the Remain camp that looks at policy conflicts and explores the realities of both staying and leaving? Show me one from anyone! It's still not happening!

17 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

So the wheels starting to slowly fall over Corbyns fantasy manifiesto, as some of us highlighted his manifesto was great but completely unworkable due to the amount it would cost. 

Like I said neither candidate can be trusted  

I'm not even worried about the cost, someone will always waste our cash. But he's proved himself a career politician with an agenda for rebellion but not change. Because he appears to shuns anything centrist, I feel he doesn't realise that he needs to deliver change under the softly, softly approach that much of the real world requires.
Eg - Don't put all your eggs in the social housing basket, there are many more who need help, in fact probably more need help!!!! Or, don't just say we're going to take back our railways, say we're going to take back our lines to deliver competition. 

44 minutes ago, Deisler123 said:

I recently got interested in British politics, and wonder anyone can explain to me why Labour party in this country is often referred to as a 'left-wing party'?

I am aware of the usual image of 'class-less revolution'/Marxism being left-wing, and of course a political party that is built upon the support of 'workers' is naturally linked to 'left'. But I am still confused by the classification in Britain. 

- Has Labour party been traditionally defined as 'left-wing party' since its birth? What was the attitude of ordinary people towards Labour pre/post WWII?  I understand that NHS was 'created' by Labour and the idea of NHS is in fact 'left-wing', i.e. anti-privatisation (thus anti-capitalism). So surely Labour should not be judged/hated purely by being 'left-wing' (because people love the idea of NHS)?

- I heard back in 70s there were some 'privatisation' of state-owned businesses approved by Conservatives. And it seems to me (maybe I am wrong) that more and more people are arguing against that idea. Was Labour against that back in 70s?

- In a few TV debates I watched on BBC, when people (including those panelists) tried to accuse someone's idea being 'left-wing', they will call them 'socialists' rather than 'communists'. My understanding is, generally speaking, 'socialism' being mid-left-wing while communism being 'extreme left-wing'. My confusion here is, why people often use the word 'socialist' when they are referring to 'left-wing' ideas? Is it because in British history, there were some socialist parties but never had strong communism movement? 

I think you'll get a more accurate response from some others but I'll reply from my own perspective as a swing voter (someone who hasn't decided who they vote for).

1. I was born in the early 80's so I don't know how people felt about Labour just after the war but there's a hangover of people who think Labour are left, or driven by socialist ideologies. Tragically, we have a two party system so voters/members like to put themselves into a box. It's pretty much meaningless!

The whole left/right debate has been fairly well claimed by how people view welfare or whether they see themselves as caring or not, despite the majority supporting the ethos that we should help people through state intervention. Labour are seen to look after the people so must be left, Conservatives are seen as nasty to poor people so must be right. Our system now completely ignores policy as a way of differentiating left/right and you can see that by local politics, where the difference between the parties is minuscule but people still vote on whether they are left or right.

2. However, modern political history couldn't be further from the truth. Labour spent the 2000's privatising very much (NHS, welfare, utilities) and during the 90's put up a meagre fight against it. Their lefty hangover remains and so people believe they genuinely are noticeably more left. However, it's all a bit of a nonsense. If you look at British Leyland, who spawned some of the most iconic vehicles on the road today, Thatcher bailed them out because she felt they were too big to fail, or, the UK couldn't afford to see their jobs go!
Privatisation does work both ways but the consequences of how that privatisation takes place is often ignored by the general public and media. Labour's privatisation is now about votes and not reality and so they aren't taken as seriously. Conservatives hold the position that Labour are fiscally irresponsible and so it appears as though one is left and other is right, the truth is they're both liars using left/right perspective to win power not explain what change means.

3. I think you've got the measure of that quite nicely. 

Good god! I was never a fan of history but some of the replies in here really are gif worthy. 

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Could you elaborate on your outrage? I am not getting what the issue is, he praised a countrys welfare and infrastructure. 

No outrage just pointing out fact! Hopefully by the end of the week, many days/weeks/months/years later, we'll know whether Corbyn has a backbone...and again, I do like Corbyn....time for a signature change! 

Good god we're far back in here! Pretty amazing after the week Labour have had, though 'Tory bashing' is definitely the modern day fox hunting. Distasteful, but necessary for some to get through the week.
Anyway, great points aside, let's make another one!

Labour, tut bloody tut! 

Quote

On the other side of the world, there’s a politician who doesn’t seem to have got the message. As has been documented, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is a lifelong fan of Venezuela. Even as it has become increasingly clear that Maduro’s policies have made a bad situation devastating, Corbyn’s support has not faltered. As recently as June 2015, just before he announced his bid for the Labour leadership, he said:

“When we celebrate, and it is a cause for celebration, the achievements of Venezuela, in jobs, in housing , in health, in education, but above all its role in the whole world as a completely different place, then we do that because we recognise what they have achieved.”

What they have “achieved” is the ruin of a country that could have been a global success story with proper management. And Corbyn’s policies, if he ever had the opportunity to enact them, would set Britain on a similar course. His original platform included plans to nationalise the UK’s energy sector, and though he finally dropped this policy at the end of September, he still supports the nationalisation of Britain’s railways. In November, the Labour leader’s response to the decline of steel prices was to propose nationalising Britain’s failing steel industry. And while Corbyn has never gone as far as to suggest price caps for supermarket goods, he has advocated for both rent controls and a cap on energy prices.

There are valid arguments for certain left-wing policies – a strong social safety net, investment in infrastructure and education, sturdy health-and-safety standards, and protection from monopolies. Venezuela’s demise does not prove that all state intervention is, by definition, detrimental. What is does show, overwhelmingly, is that it is easy to go too far, that private enterprise cannot thrive under heavy state control, and that governments with too much power fail to act in the best interests of their citizens.

https://capx.co/corbyn-looks-the-other-way-as-venezuela-self-destructs/

I wonder whether Labour will come out and talk about this one any time soon, or whether it will be another EU nonsense where they commit to everything positive but nothing real.

On 02/08/2017 at 06:40, bickster said:

Reversing the decision of the almost meaningless referendum. Hold another referendum now and the result would be reversed, no question in my mind about that. Which is the correct snapshot of public opinion? Referendums are particularly stupid tools on which to make such important decisions. Close results lead to zero mandate for anything.

Completely **** the country up on something I'm fairly sure the majority of the country country no longer wants (and probably never would have, had they not been lied to) is the behaviour of a lemming running off a cliff. This lot couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag let alone something this complex and with both hands tied behind their back at the same time.

Cornwall voted to leave, they asked for their £600mil of whatever it was they received from the EU annually, which they were promised by the likes of Gove and Boris, reality has hit home, they won't be getting a quarter of that and the longer this farce goes on, the more sectors of society that voted to leave will realise they've been totally dicked over.

Trouble is, the nonsense needs stopping now, not in another years time.

All very good points, apart from the highlighted one. 

You don't know how the next 20 years are going to play out let alone the next 12 months. The EU is broken for very many people, it's already been effing up peoples lives for a little while now.
Also certain 'leave' voters are and may be absolutely delighted. The majority of remain hasn't given;for example, fishermen, the time of day. Or have I been lied to and they have been working hard for the last 20 years to help them? Obviously that was rhetorical. Remain only care about remaining, not the problems with the EU. Even now!

And yes, some people who didn't do the research were lied to. As they were and are by every political party on a weekly basis. But denial is a strong emotion and on that note I'm off to see how the Labour members of this forum are reacting to Venezuelan/Labour party links!